2 of 2

No

Write now Article Tools

A better title for this debate would be: are special interest groups too quick to condemn everyday products without looking at potential benefits of those products? Most people do not even think about who is funding the scientific research they read about. Corporations pay for research to prove that their products are safe and effective. Scientists paid to perform this research design experiments to minimize problems for the company. Non profit groups and government agencies also pay for research. Too often, the people responsible for handing out grant money only fund scientists who share their beliefs. These groups all pay for results that agree with their point of view. As a result, consumers are bombarded with scientific data that a particular product is bad for you. Some years later, a "follow up" study with new research and a review of previous studies will conclude that a product is not bad for you, and may even be good for you!

A very good example of this is our ancient friend table salt. Humans have used salt to preserve food, create medicines and more for centuries. In the 1970's and 80's, salt was vilified in the popular press due to studies linking it to high blood pressure and heart disease. People were encouraged to remove as much salt as possible from their diets even if they did not have any medical problems. In less than a generation, we went from a society that encouraged consumption of iodized salt to prevent goiters to one that considered salt intake as harmful as smoking. Fast forward to the present and we find scattered articles related to problems associated with too little salt in the diets of otherwise healthy people. We seem to have returned to great grandma's adage: "all things in moderation" with regard to salt.
Unfortunately, the corporations that produce our food and other consumer goods are too afraid of the financial consequences of being sued. If one of their products has unanticipated problems, they don't want to be blamed. Companies will fund poor quality research that "proves" a product is safe as a first line of defense. They use their influence to see that research that could damage the reputation of their products goes unfunded. They will also use their clout in the legal arena to silence questions about their products. A good example of this is the recent attempt by a manufacturer of Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) to have farmers fined if they labeled their milk "BGH free," because this might cause consumers to question the

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Is science too quick to condemn everyday products without first trying to find their benefits??
We want to hear your view. Write now!